<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: Officer smith found a broken window at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s>
stringlengths 355
1.02k
|
|---|
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information, since if the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information, because if the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information, as if the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's missing laptop contained sensitive financial information then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's missing laptop did not contain sensitive financial information
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street and a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that no mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, since if a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, because if a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene, as if a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: No mysterious note with cryptic symbols was discovered at the scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street, and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street and the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, since if the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, because if the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity, as if the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the suspect had recently taken out a large loan under a false identity then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The suspect had not recently taken out a large loan under a false identity
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that the victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, since if the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, because if the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder, as if the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street and the arson did not occur on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If the victim's neighbors reported unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: The victim's neighbors did not report unusual activity in the days leading up to the murder
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, therefore the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, hence the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, thus the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, so it can be concluded that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, so the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, which implies that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, which shows that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene, which establishes that the arson occurred on elm street.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, since if a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, because if a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```The arson occurred on elm street, as if a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street and a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: A forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene
Conclusion: The arson occurred on Elm Street
Type of argument: modus ponen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, therefore a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, hence a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, thus a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so it can be concluded that a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, so a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which implies that a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which shows that a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
<s>[INST] Analize the following argument, identifying premises, conclusion, type of argument, and argument validity:
```If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street, and the arson did not occur on elm street, which establishes that a forensic expert did not match the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene.``` [/INST] Premise 1: If a forensic expert matched the suspect's dna to evidence found at the crime scene then the arson occurred on elm street
Premise 2: The arson did not occur on elm street
Conclusion: A forensic expert did not match the suspect's DNA to evidence found at the crime scene
Type of argument: modus tollen
Validity: True </s> |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.